The Event Horizon Telescope experiment

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35258378

2017 is about to arrive, let's see how not finding a black hole will look like.

They can't afford to not find it so they will fudge it until it looks like what they expect. With all of the crap surrounding LIGO, BICEP2 and let's not forget the Higgs Boson, can we expect anything else?

With so many telescopes in different locations, they should find the discrepancies in the bending of light that Miles has discussed and measured but I expect they won't admit it. But that's okay because Miles is already a step (or twenty) ahead of them so he can hit the ground running.

I expect they will find something there but it will show things moving out, not in. Of course they will interpret it as moving in because they only have gravity to work with so what else could it be?

I worry about their choice of wavelength. Not the value itself, I don't know enough to dispute that, but that they are limiting everything to that one wavelength. If I wanted to know something about an entity that I knew nothing about, then I would want to see as many wavelengths as I could so that I can get a complete picture of what is going on. Of course there are issues with that, which they are legitimately addressing. Can you imagine what we would think of our sun if we could only see the blue wavelengths?

Having made a great many "black hole" simulation animations and tests to show people how ridiculous the concept is, and having a great familiarity with the best such software available, I feel like I'm in a pretty good position to judge how much they fudge us on this one. That is to say, I should be able to spot any blatant CGI tricks. Kinda looking forward to this!

Black Holes
Charles Chandler somewhere said lately that it's unlikely that black holes exist, but the objects mistaken for black holes are likely to be "natural tokamaks", which he explains at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5738. "A tokamak is a device that uses magnetic field to confine plasma in the shape of a torus." A Natural Tokamak is a star system sized ring of plasma confined by magnetic fields produced by counterstreaming ion flows. Natural Tokamaks form in the same way spherical stars form, by the electrical collapse of galactic filaments from supernovae and or gas cloud collisions. The more relativistic the velocity of filament implosions, the more likely the star will be a Natural Tokamak.

In his paper on Supernovae at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=16754 Charles compares images of the Crab pulsar in radio, IR, visible light, UV, x-ray and gamma ray frequencies, copied below.


The shape of the pulsar shows up most clearly in the x-ray image (while the IR and UV images look like blurred x-ray images). It's a ring structure. He says: "Another interesting characteristic of the Crab Pulsar is that it is moving at 375 km/s relative to the surrounding nebula. This is fairly common for pulsars, quasars, and white dwarfs, which the present model considers to be closely related. But thus far, no reason for relative motion has been given." The pulsar's magnetic "field is running counter to the galactic field. The opposing magnetic fields will produce a directional force, for the same reason that a bar magnet inside a solenoid moves in a specific direction when a current is supplied to the coils. Thus the NT, among other things, is a magnetic thruster." That seems to be why the right and left sides of the pulsar's ring are not symmetrical.

I presented the above to suggest what to expect to find where black holes are claimed to exist, i.e. huge relativistic-flow plasma rings. AGNs, quasars, pulsars, white dwarfs, "black holes" etc are all similar plasma rings, all characterized by bipolar jets and very strong magnetic fields.

Dark Matter
I think this graph is the basis of Dark Matter theory.


In his Galaxies paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5941 Charles says: "[I]n a 'like-likes-like' configuration [+-+ or -+-], the electric force is attractive [same charges are attracted by an opposite charge between them], so this is what provides the tensile strength that allows a galaxy to be twirled into a flat disc without falling [or flying] apart. ... To be more specific, the outer reaches of spiral galaxies rotate 5 times faster than what is predicted by the laws of gravity, as shown in Figure 14 [similar to graph above]. For objects to remain in orbit around the center of gravity, the centrifugal force developed by their orbital speeds has to match the force of gravity exactly. If the centrifugal force is greater, the objects fly away. If it is less, the objects fall inward. Since the spiral arms are stable, this can only be evidence of a non-Newtonian force, 5 times more powerful than gravity. We know that the planets are negatively charged, surrounded by positively charged ionospheres, and we know that the interplanetary medium is plasma with a slight positive charge. Subsequent sections will demonstrate that stars have a net negative charge. So the 'like-likes-like' force is definitely present, and could easily be 5 times greater than gravity."