Black holes could challenge Relativity

Einstein, Black Holes and the Fate of Relativity

Einstein’s General Relativity is a theory of grand scales, requiring correspondingly grand scale experiments to test it. Black holes, whose existence is predicted by General Relativity, are a great laboratory for such experiments. So far, these new experiments, including the recent visualization of the black hole at the center of our galaxy by the Event Horizon Telescope, seem to confirm the theory. For some, this means the truth of Relativity is increasingly beyond doubt. But at the same time, these experiments open up new ways of challenging, and potentially falsifying Einstein’s theory. That is how Einstein himself wanted thing to be. For him, scientific theories were not meant to be collections of true claims to be confirmed by experiments, but heuristic devices open to being discarded the moment they stopped working, argues Lydia Patton.


Many philosophers of science cite confirmation by experimental evidence as a crucial virtue of theories. Confirma

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Join the conversation

Mike Pollock 20 July 2022

Lydia, every once in a while I hear people making some effort to try to understand why so much in our universe is completely unexplained. It is amazing how these efforts completely disintegrate so the big bang theory can live as a law forever. The situation is grave but science doesn't want to do what it takes to fix it. That's why paradigm shifts are nearly impossible to come by.

There is now a better theory that follows all the laws that have been abandoned for the last several decades. Currently, the first law of thermodynamics is ignored because all the matter in the universe came from somewhere that scientists do not understand the physics of. Before time, nothing existed. After time started, everything existed. How is a human supposed to understand how that would happen? How many stipulations of the theory have to break the laws in this case?
The initial "singularity" the universe was made of had all the matter of the universe inside of it. How much gravity would that produce? What could possibly happen for the singularity to overcome its own gravity to expand? What force did it? What force is accelerating the universe in its expansion? That makes the whole problem much more difficult to deal with. Unfortunately, there are no explanations for any of the forces involved. It is as if "nothing" did it all.

I have discovered what happened 13.8 billion years ago by applying all the laws of physical that exist. First, everything was already here when the Big Bang happened. Is that so hard for the scientific community to understand? How does science think it can put a time stamp on our entire universe? It is simply not logical to make an assumption like that because of the obvious implications that it creates. A whole group of assumptions had to be created to make our universe "born" like supernovae, fusion, and gravity turning a harmless cloud of gas and dust into a star that will burn for billions of years. Supernovae that are studied never follow the parameters they are supposed to. Fusion has been created for 80 years and never shown any sign of helping humans because the reaction is simply a conservation of energy and mass. Quark plasma is what they are looking for, not fusion. The force of gravity is impossible to understand because a cloud of gas and dust must create its own gravity to become a star. Unfortunately, gravity is not a free energy that normal matter gets to use at its leisure. Gravity doesn't create energy, energy creates gravity. It is a collision that created all the energy needed to accomplish what we see to this day.

13.8 billion years ago, two objects that contained the mass of the observable galaxies collided at an astronomical speed in an already existing, static universe. Our universe turned itself into a gargantuan particle collider no different than any of the ones here on Earth. The colliders create quark plasma shrapnel and our universe created quark plasma shrapnel as the expanding galaxies. This collision created an anisotropic expansion of matter that will seem like an accelerating expanding universe if it is assumed the entire universe is expanding. The accelerating universe is simply an optical illusion. Each galaxy was created as a single mass of quark plasma with it's own size, shape, rotational rate, and trajectory just like a collision would produce. Quark plasma also creates all the naturally occurring elements all by itself from the outside of the mass inward. We live on what was once a black hole of quark plasma.

So, with this theory, all the laws are followed perfectly. Everything already existed satisfying the first law. The collision created the energy the galaxies possess and they have cooled ever since that second adhering to the second law. Newton's third law of motion is satisfied because a force is given to explain why the galaxies are expanding. All the laws are followed which is what any good theory should do. Honestly, if it is really considered scientifically, the Big Bang doesn't follow any of them. That would cause the trouble witnessed ever since the Big Bang theory was made a law.

Scott Anderson 20 July 2022

The biggest problem in foundational physics is the use of idealized states in theoretical application. For instance: we know there has never been a perfect vacuum all attempts structurally fail, this is mentioned in published papers on vacuum properties for over a century yet the original theories and by extension any attempts at unification use the perfect vacuum definition. There has never been a "space" observed with zero mass and only light or only energy, we have never physically separated light or energy from matter, to do so conceptually sectioning these attributes off into their own particles was a mistake. The inference of the electron was a mathematical oddity leaning on a charge to mass ratio of an accelerated rarefied gas, inference is not evidence. In a realistic non-zero vacuum everything happening between those collider detectors is atomic impact proxy only, regardless of what math you can do to infer smaller interactions taking place. The use of the ideal vacuum state theoretically means all revenue in the theories to a vacuum are abstract without grounding in reality, zero point, permeability of free space, speed of light in a vacuum, vacuum fluctuations all of it... no direct observation, second hand data only for over a hundred years in the wrong direction. It's time we clean up this mess it's been half a century on quarks the big bang is a marriage of convenience between hubbles remarks on redshirt and the need for quark confinement. The dark variables represnt the difference between prediction and observation. Too arrogant to see the error of our ways, the equations missing the majority of mass and energy should have been the first clue we need to go back to the drawing board

Xinhang Shen 19 July 2022

The fatal mistake of Einstein's relativity is obvious, but current mainstream physicists just ignore it. They always claim a moving clock "ticks" more slowly than the stationary clock, but they never question the details of the moving clock: is the length of the tick becoming shorter or the frequency of the tick becoming slower? These are two totally different concepts that the mainstream physicists have mixed up in the statement, which results in a totally wrong conclusion.

In special relativity, the Lorentz Transformation tells us that the time of a moving inertial reference frame becomes shorter than the time of the stationary reference frame of the observer, the mainstream physicists including Einstein himself simply conclude that the moving clock ticks more slowly than the stationary clock. But the real clock measures time using its recorded the number of cycles of its own oscillating system divided by a calibration constant, while the number of cycles is the product of time and frequency. Though the time of the moving frame becomes shorter, the frequency of the moving clock becomes faster to make their product remain the same as the product of the stationary clock, i.e., clock time is absolute and independent of reference frames, completely different from relativistic time, which means special relativity is wrong, and relativistic time is just an artificial time without physical meaning. Therefore, there is no such thing called relativistic spacetime in nature, and all relativistic spacetime based theories including general relativity are wrong.

It is so clear that everybody with basic concept of physics can understand. Why are the mainstream physicists still continuing wasting their time and public fund in the wrong theory?