Black holes of corruption

I am reading an extremely difficult book from 1984, Order out of Chaos, Man’s New Dialogue with Nature, by the late Ilya Prigogine (1917-2003) and Isabelle Stengers (1949-). I was tuned to the book by Eric J. Lerner in his book The Big Bang Never Happened, with a warning that the Prigogine/Stengers work was over the public’s head. I am part of the public, and yes, he is right. It is over my head.

The Lerner book was more accessible to me, a history of science and how it works, really. I see it all around me in my delving into AIDS, the PSA test and climate change. It is laboriously explained in a paragraph from the Order out of Chaos, page 308:

…the transformation of a paradigm appears as a crisis: instead of remaining a silent, almost invisible rule, instead of remaining unspoken, the paradigm is actually questioned. Instead of working in unison, members of the community begin to ask “basic” questions and challenge the legitimacy of their methods. The group, which by training was homogeneous, now diversifies. Different points of view, cultural experiences, and philosophic convictions are now expressed and often play a decisive role in the discovery of a new paradigm. The emergence of the new paradigm further increases the vehemence of the debate. The rival paradigms are put to the test until the academic world determines the victor. With the appearance of a new generation of scientists, silence and unanimity take over again. New textbooks are written, and once again, things “go without saying.”

That is really just another way of saying that old science does not die until the old scientists do. It is basically a false statement, as I view it. The academic world rarely determines a victor. That sort of triumph usually comes from outside the gated enclaves, usually the product of some isolated genius working alone and without funding.

Well, enough of that, otherwise my head might explode. I knew going in that the book would be extremity difficult, but hoped some of it might sink in. It and Lerner’s work have caused me to think more about how science is really done rather than how scientists imagine it. I thought when I came to realize that AIDS and climate change were large hoaxes that I was seeing something new.  Not so. Those around Galileo knew what was up, that he had exposed a paradigm to be false. They merely ostracized him while smugly refusing to look through his telescope.

That is how science is done, really. It is a club that is  closed to outsiders. At the heart of it are not shifting paradigms, but rather corruption and dishonesty. Science today has little, if anything to do with science, and a lot to do with political agendas. It follows the money.

Here’s something more to add from the Lerner book, page 256:

In 1989… new evidence developed which will probably doom the black hole hypothesis. Gas and plasma near the center of galaxies has always been observed to move at high velocity, up to 1500 km/sec for our own galaxy, and similar or higher values for others. These velocities are generally treated as evidence for a black hole’ whose powerful gravitational field has trapped the swirling gases. The two scientists at the University of Arizona, G,H, and M.J. Rieke, carefully measured the velocities of stars within a few light-years of the center of our galaxy, and found the velocities are no higher than 70 km/sec, 20 times slower than the plasma velocities measured in the same area. Since stars must respond to any gravitational force, their low velocity show that no black hole exists. The high-speed gases must therefore be trapped only by a magnetic field, which does not affect the stars.

Roughly translated, Lerner is saying that black holes are a cosmic impossibility, and that physical observations (as opposed to mathematical theory) show they do not, cannot exist. This paragraph came to mind as we learned last week that a 29 year-old scientist, Katie Bouman, had a led a team that for the first time every photographed a black hole. It is shown below.


Honestly, that could be anything. It could be a flashlight. I have done a lot of photographic work here over the years, and if one thing stands out, it is this: People see what authority figures tell them they see. There is tremendous controversy in cosmology, the noise muffled, around subjects like black holes, dark matter, WIMPs, cosmic strings and epicycles … and the Big Bang itself. Scientists inside the gates will go to great lengths to “save the phenomenon.” When I first heard about this photo, I suspected that cosmologists were confidently asserting something that is not apparent or proven to exist at all. A mere photo does not get it done.

I have searched around for information on Bouman, and find that she is being defended against “misogynist trolls” who dispute her work … the fact that she is young, and that she is a she, it seems, will be the first line of defense of her work. I am sensing groupthink nonsense. As with the African American woman said to have plotted the trajectory to the moon, was Bouman put forward as a shield to protect a dead idea? Will political correctness save the day?

If observations in 1989, outside the mainstream to be sure, pretty much “doomed” the theory of black holes, a contrived photo in 2019 will not save them.

This is where I am at these days, swimming in the deep end, in over my head, but seeing in present-day science a black hole of corruption, nothing more. Things have not changed since Galileo’s time.

13 thoughts on “Black holes of corruption

  1. Just popping in to say that these images of a black hole or Pluto or whatever are not actually photographs in the conventional sense of the word: they are renderings—composite images pieced together from collections of data.

    Of course, one could ask which data are being used and which are being omitted. Back in the day when TV sets had three little knobs to play with, you could make a normal image look otherworldly just by dialing the knobs to the extremes in either direction.


      1. A good point, but orthogonal to what I was saying. Which is:

        Quite different images can be offered for the same object, depending on what kind of radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum you attend to. I can make a photograph of Mark Tokarski using light from the visible spectrum; you have posted such photos of yourself from time to time on the blog. Or I can use a night-vision camera and make an image of you with near-infrared light, which will look similar but perhaps not immediately recognizable as the same person. I can project x-rays from behind you and create a negative image, in which case you look like a skeleton—and then you become probably unrecognizable. I can inject you with radioactive “dye” and make another kind of image for medical purposes, which only a trained specialist would recognize as an image of a human being.

        To the naked eye on a spacecraft, would Pluto have a big fuzzy heart on it? I don’t know. Because the image that has been rendered of Pluto uses all kinds of data from various phenomena radiating from or reflecting off that object. But whether the visible-light spectrum would show a heart? That we have to take on faith.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. … which is a roundabout way of saying, I bet you could take a Tootsie Pop and make an image of it that looks like a black hole, just by shining a certain kind of light on it or applying certain filters.


  2. Looks to me like outstretched arm holding glazed donut probably krispy kreme. I can even see one finger and thumb. Me Myself & I see this all by ourselves too. Because thankfully authority figures don’t exist in my world. At least not the omnipotent authority figures mentioned in this piece whose influence is so great they could render the Rorshach Test useless by simply telling pissants to believe every picture shown is Mr. Potatohead with no lips.


    1. You’re right. To me it looks like a thermal image of a warm glazed Krispy Kreme donut just right out of the oven. LOL.


  3. Science is the shadow (darkness) families invention. Same method of operation & execution as their other tool’s to keep the sheep in their pen’s. Their books. Their schools. Their rules. It began when they mingled w/mans blood at the corner of Mt. Hermon & 33rd parallel.


  4. Motorhead do you recall Mark oiling his bot clear-cutting chainsaw recently then telling you to take the hint. As a kid was it common for you to collide action figures together beginning a pretend battle all alone with yourself wherever you could find privacy? Did you ever make up your own language or secret handshake? Were you constantly lost in thought dreaming up schemes to overthrow Mr. Popular running off with his babe in the process? Have you ever given any thought to who your audience is besides yourself? Have you ever had the guts to just come out and say what you really mean. Or do you just jack your fingers off to the music your brain sings offkeyboard without any ovation but your own knee slapping killing time at commercial.


    1. Back to “moderation” again … Maybe it’s time I go through other sites to expose this one…and with a little help and power I’m sure we could melt this down ! is Rico worth risking your blog ?


  5. Rico, who publishes the science books the past 100 years or so? Who is the information for & to what end is this disinformation to gain? K.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s