Black Holes - Snowballs in Space by G. H. Ritz Since first proposed by Karl Schwarzschild in 1916 Black Holes have been the focus of a great deal of attention in the scientific community. It wasn't until 1994 that the first evidence of the presence of one of these fearsome spatial anomalies was found, but as yet there is no convincing evidence that such things actually exist. They are said to occur with the collapse of a star 20 or 30 times more massive than our sun following a supernova. That is but one of many theories as to how Black Holes form, the most professional in the general consensus, but there are many other theories with little to comm- end them. In fact, astronomers and astrophysicists are not sure how Black Holes form, how long they last, or what eventually becomes of them. We contend that they do not exist. Further, we propose that one of Black Hole Theory's most prominent spokesman has actually furnished the most con- vincing proof that they do not exist. But first a little background. For many decades since their existence was proposed, Black Holes have been considered among the most final objects in the Universe. Once a Black Hole was formed any matter that fell into it was lost forever. This conclusion (as we are once again in the land of a priori conclusions begging proof) a whole set of conundrums developed concerning the effects of Black Holes on time. One of these questions was: Can there be a future if Black Holes gobble up the past? It is here that we find our first point of objection. There is a difference between facts and ideas. Time is not a fact, but a concept developed by man, for man, and particular to man. Grasshoppers don't know what time it is. They don't care either. But for such things as knowing when to plant crops, when to show up for work, or when to plan a vacation, it has its uses. But before we would concern ourselves with what will happen to the future, we would ask what happened to something more basic and infinitely more factual. Like, what happens to friction when one of these huge stars collapses? The issue doesn't seem to be addressed in any of the tracts on Black Holes, but it is true that when matter is compressed into a smaller volume the density increases. This density freely translates into the proposition that the mole- cules and atoms of the material are squeezed together tightly. The tighter the compression the greater the friction, which we may contemplate as being the resistance to further compacting. When the mass of twenty or 30 suns in packed into a region not much larger than the sun we would certainly expect that the friction generated would be more than enough for a ignition of some kind. But the Black Hole Theory seems to ignore friction altogether. There are other problems with the concept of Black Holes, some of which we have already attended in our opening remarks. In summary, these may be stated thus: There is more that is unknown about Black Holes than is known. But we do have one fact that we feel significant to the counter-proof we propose to the theory of Black Holes: that they do not exist. Black Holes seem to occur exclusively near the center of galaxies, and the volume of material they appear to swallow up, coupled with the rate at which this consumption goes forward, suggests that these are very big presences in- deed. But Black Holes? It's not that we have anything against Black Holes. They may even exist, although the dearth of information about them, the difficulty in locating them, and the seeming lack of friction in the presence of such crushing den- sities, do not inspire much confidence in the prospect. Instead we feel that there is a far more sensible explanation for these phenomena; one which does not pose any problem to full understanding, and which contains no exclusions such as the missing friction. A star takes many billions of years to form. The process begins with the merging of two particles, drawn together by their mutual gravitation. Their masses and gravitational forces combine and a chain reaction is set up: the new, more massive particle attracts another, the gravitation increases fur- ther, and more particles are attracted to the concentration. More matter, more gravity; more gravity, more matter - it just goes on and on until the matter accumulates to such proportions as to cause ignition. A star is born! But it takes a long time. Longer is some cases than in others. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation states that the attractive force be- tween two bodies is reduced sharply as the distance between them increases. The effect is proportional to the masses of the two objects, but in general provides that at a distance of two units the gravitational force is a fourth of its intensity at one unit, one-ninth at three units: the inverse square of the distance. Michael Faraday, while working with Charles Wheatstone in 1845, came upon a drawing that depicted Newton's Law of Gravitation, showing two masses some distance apart along with the equation for the force acting between them. He asked: What would happen to the gravitational force if there were only one mass? So was born the field theory of forces; magnetic and electrical, as well as gravitational. The field theory states that a massive body has an intrinsic force of at- traction whether in the vicinity of another body of significant mass or no. The relevance of this concept is that the combined forces acting between two bodies are such that, at a given point between them, the forces cancel each other out and a body at this point will be attracted to neither. If the body shifts along this line in the direction of either of the two masses it will continue toward the object mass, accelerating as the distance between the body and the mass diminishes. No longer a theory, this field effect explains why there is such a wide variance in the size of stars; gigantic stars are found almost exclusively at the center of a galaxy, while smaller stars occupy regions away from the cen- ter, the farther away the smaller the star. Our own sun is tiny by comparison with the supergiants found at the center of the Milky Way. The connection between field effect and the size of the stars which reside at or near the center of a galaxy is simply that the formation of a new star in this region is subject to the counter-gravitational forces of the nearby stars, even if nearby is several light-years. This requires a far greater accumulation of material to induce ignition at the center. Our sun formed rather quickly by comparison because, in the absence of any countervailing forces, the density of the material at the core built to critical mass under the full force of the gravitation pulling inward. But the total mass of the body would have to reach the right magnitude to impact the center with the frictional intensity needed to set ignition. But even then star would not become totally involved immediately. The molten core would be confined to the region at the center until yet more material piled on the surface of the still-dark body; the additional mass would compress the core, causing it to expand until finally it was large enough to blaze through the surface. The boundary between the core plasma and the surrounding dark matter would not be as clear and crisp as, say, a cue ball in the center of a basketball. More like a ball of dry ice, there would be mist of radiation surrounding the central core having a diameter about twice that of the core itself. Its outer region would be pushed closer to the surface of the forming star as the core expanded with the added pressure from the new material accumulating on the surface. Sometime in advance of complete combustion, while the surface of the star is yet dark, this advance radiation would be detectable. Let us now consider what would happen in the case of a star forming at the center of our galaxy. With a diameter of 2,500,000 miles, and having approxi- mately 20 times the volume of our sun, the accumulation of sufficient matter to cause ignition at the core would take an immensely long time to collect. This is because of the gravitational influence of the surrounding supergiants which would soften the concentration of material, requiring up to 10 times as much to drive the density at the core to critical mass. The forming star would still be dark, black in fact, and would remain so for much of its formative period. The same compression-expansion interchange would operate with the impress of additional material at the surface expand- ing the core, but at many times the intensity of the same phenomenon in the case of a star the size of the sun. In the case of the more massive star the shell of radiation leeching to the surface in advance of the expanding molten core would flatten out considerably as the effect would be spread out over a much greater surface area, meaning that this dark radiation would escape the surface at a higher intensity, able to be detected at great distances. We believe that so-called Black Holes are in reality immense black bodies, forming stars not yet to the point of full combustion but very close, and at the stage where the advance radiation is leeching from the surface. And there is good reason to believe so. Stephen Hawking, the eminent physicist, has the distinction of having a form of radiation named for him. Formerly a principal in the group of astro- physicists who proclaimed the finality of Black Holes, in recent years Hawk- ing has recanted this position stating that perhaps Black Holes eventually wear away, like snowballs melting. And they emit radiation, but in a most peculiar fashion; not from the holes themselves but from some distance away. One analogy is that Hawking Radiation vis-a-vis Black Holes would be as steam rising from a cup of hot coffee - not from the cup itself but from several feet away. Given the state of Black Hole theory we can only imagine the ratiocinative mental gymnastics, complete with arcane equations broached in exotic terms, to explain this displaced radiation. Then there is always the question of the missing friction. The model we suggest is eminently understandable, possibly making it unscientific in the minds of some who would regard such understand- ing with the same alarm that the Medieval Church expressed at the invention of the printing press. But the pieces all fit and friction is present doing its job the way it's supposed to. The forming star being black even during the last stages of its develop- ment would reflect no light, therefore it would appear as a void. As to the behavior attributed to Black Holes, this effect is consistent with the Black Star model we propose. It would be Einstein's Moon experiment magnified ten times over. To demonstrate that gravity affected light Einstein selected a star that lay in the path of the approaching Moon in the night sky. The Moon would move in front of the star and block it from view, but the focus of the experiment was the moment just prior to this obstruction. At this point, just as the star was at its closest point to the silvery disc without touching, it stop- ped suddenly, hung there for about three seconds, and then disappeared! The rays of light from the star, already behind the Moon were bent such that it was still visible for a brief interval during which it appeared to stand com- pletely still. The Moon has less than a third the mass of the earth; the star we are talking about is twenty times the mass of the Sun. The effect shown by the Moon experiment would be many times greater, the light rays distorted by multiples of the Lunar apparition, and would cause all matter including stars to seem to be swallowed up when in fact they are only hidden by the interpos- ing Black Body, but with the much more exciting denouement as these material objects seem to stop dead, then disappear from great distances. The phenomenon would have the appearance of permanences as the building star might not explode to its brilliant debut for several millions of years. Moving slowly and in the same direction as the Black Star, the bodies hidden by this immense agglomeration would indeed appear to have been lost forever, or at least an extremely long time. The intense gravitational force of the star acting through 360 degrees would affect the appearance of a cornucopia, or the bell of a trumpet viewed head on, that is also a feature of the fabled Black Hole. The stoppage of the inducted material would be the result of the light rays beamed toward the viewer being sharply bent as the material moves around behind the Black Body, not the frozen image erroneously attributed to the effect of it's being accelerated to the speed of light. For this to be a valid conclusion the "captured" material would have to exceed lightspeed in order to be sucked into the hole. The image so attributed does disappear, an eventuality impossible if the object had actually achieved lightspeed. Finally, the Hawking Radiation which seems to escape the Black Hole from a point somewhere distant would be accountable by the leeching to the surface of the low level radiation breaking through in advance of the plasmic core. In the presence of an alternative and eminently more understandable account of the peculiarities of Black Holes we would respectfully submit that these anomalies do not exist and pose no threat to mankind. But the Black Stars do exist, as they must, and present a menacing aspect to anyone foolish enough to venture too close to the center of our galaxy or any other.