No More Black Holes?
Part 1 of 2
To: Phil Berardelli <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Date: Friday 6 July 2007
Subject: No More Black Holes?
Dear Mr Berardelli,
No More Black Holes?
Pardon me, but the above question
mark got replaced with an exclamation mark in the book (1) that I
Briefly, here, in this fractal universe of ours, we see the atomic nucleus in the chicken egg. The basic nucleus is thus soft inside a hard shell (the hardest in nature, as the math also shows). Under increasing pressure, the nucleus simply increases in size (nucleon number), never in density (the neutron star is thus essentially a giant atomic nucleus in an extreme pressure environment), and bifurcates or fragments should this pressure become critically anisotropic. Thus, the so-called gravitational collapse of matter (to a black hole) is an absolute impossibility and a nonevent in nature.
It is, therefore, of little wonder
that observations are increasingly at loggerheads with today's standard
theories and that even top academics are now beginning to openly air their
discontent (if not outrage) and that too here in a highly conservative
mainstream journal. (A thaw may already be in progress at Physical Review D
ever since my personal presentation of my work at the APS April 2001 meeting in
Further, from your news item,
Dead on, Prof Krauss! I have termed these "supermassive remnants of stars" as Cosmic Cores, the ultimate recycling centers in observable space (3).
You're right, too, Dr Weaver (as Topol would say!). However, this "interstellar material disappearing without a trace" is indeed the fallback of low-speed matter following the galactic core's periodic nova-like ejections that spawn the stars. It is the stupendous backpressure from the (radially outward) galactic superwind (4) that causes this illusion of a black hole monster feeding at the center!
I wish Prof Krauss and his team well and hope they'll go even further to show that dark matter (4) and dark energy (5) are further nonentities (if not further embarrassments to the field) with no 'strings' to boot!
Finally, my recent short article (6 ) submitted to the Institute of Physics (UK) may now be the better and potentially rewarding port of entry to this final perspective on the nature of things. (The US$25,000 challenge therein no joke; no scam; and still open, pending IOP response should be of appeal especially to the students at CWRU Physics, with Prof Akerib or even Prof Krauss himself as the sole judge!)
(6) www.sittampalam.net/LateralThoughts.pdf (preprint; limited circulation)
End of Letter