V.5 No 2


Supplement 1

On the basis of this additional material, and especially of proof of illegal substitution in Schwarzschild’s metric of the really measured parameter r by the virtual parameter R, it will be now interesting to analyse the recent NASA’s information that they discovered black holes whose radius, as the scientists of NASA are sure, has been materialised.

This information, whose original our readers can find on


advertised the publication in ‘Nature’ by several authors who described their discovery. It consisted of the image of one of objects identified by the authors as a black hole (see Fig. 1), and the text which we copy below.



fig1.gif (21953 bytes)  fig1a.gif (21801 bytes)

a                                                                        b

Fig. 1. The image of a celestial body identified by the specialists of Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif as the black hole; a - negative, b - positive


Whitney Clavin (818) 354-4673

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

Dolores Beasley (202) 358-1753

NASA Headquarters, Washington

News Release: 2005-128 August 3, 2005

NASA's Spitzer Finds Hidden, Hungry Black Holes

Most of the biggest black holes in the universe have been eating cosmic meals behind closed doors – until now.

With its sharp infrared eyes, NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope peered through walls of galactic dust to uncover what may be the long-sought missing population of hungry black holes known as quasars.

"From past studies using X-rays, we expected there were a lot of hidden quasars, but we couldn't find them," said Alejo Martinez-Sansigre of the University of Oxford, England. He is lead author of a paper about the research in this week's Nature. "We had to wait for Spitzer to find an entire population of these dust-obscured objects."

Quasars are super-massive black holes that are circled by a giant ring of gas and dust. They live at the heart of distant galaxies and can consume up to the equivalent mass of one thousand stars in a single year. As their black holes suck in material from their dusty rings, the material lights up brilliantly, making quasars the brightest objects in the universe. This bright light comes in many forms, including X-rays, visible and infrared light.

Astronomers have puzzled for years over the question of how many of these cosmic behemoths are out there. One standard method for estimating the number is to measure the cosmic X-ray background. Quasars outshine everything else in the universe in X-rays. By counting the background buzz of X-rays, it is possible to predict the approximate total number of quasars.

But this estimate has not matched previous X-ray and visible-light observations of actual quasars, which number far fewer than expected. Astronomers thought this might be because most quasars are blocked from our view by gas and dust. They proposed that some quasars are positioned in such a way that their dusty rings hide their light, while others are buried in dust-drenched galaxies.

Spitzer appears to have found both types of missing quasars by looking in infrared light. Unlike X-rays and visible light, infrared light can travel through gas and dust.

Researchers found 21 examples of these quasars in a small patch of sky. All the objects were confirmed as quasars by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico and by the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council's William Herschel Telescope in Spain.

"If you extrapolate our 21 quasars out to the rest of the sky, you get a whole lot of quasars," said Dr. Mark Lacy of the Spitzer Science Center, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., a co-author of the Nature paper. "This means that, as suspected, most super-massive black hole growth is hidden by dust."

The discovery will allow astronomers to put together a more complete picture of how and where quasars form in our universe. Of the 21 quasars uncovered by Spitzer, 10 are believed to be inside fairly mature, giant, elliptical galaxies. The rest are thought to be encased in thick, dusty galaxies that are still forming stars.

A team of researchers based at the University of Arizona, Tucson, found similar quasars using Spitzer. Their research is described at http://uanews.org/science .

Other authors of the Nature paper include Drs. Steve Rawlings and Matt Jarvis, University of Oxford; Drs. Dario Fadda and Francine Marleau, Spitzer Science Center; Dr. Chris Simpson, University of Durham, England; and Dr. Chris Willott, National Research Council Canada, Victoria.

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., a division of Caltech, manages the Spitzer Space Telescope mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. Science operations are conducted at the Spitzer Science Center at Caltech. Spitzer's multiband imaging photometer, which observed the quasars, was built by Ball Aerospace Corporation, Boulder, Colo.; the University of Arizona; and Boeing North America, Canoga Park, Calif. Spitzer's infrared array camera, which also observed the quasars, was built by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

A Spitzer false-colored picture of one of the newfound quasars is available at

http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/index.shtml .

For information about NASA and agency programs visit http://www.nasa.gov/home/ .


In this information many things are surprising and, truly saying, strange. First of all, the very image on whose basis so loud conclusions are done is non-informative. Space telescopes obtain thousands of such images, infrared in that number. The image was not developed, its salient features were not shown which would clearly distinct this object from millions of alike objects. If this was technically impossible, well, NASA already showed the images of nearer region - the centre of our Galaxy, where NASA’s specialists tried to find a black hole in 2002:


Yes, indeed, it possibly might be not quasars, but after opinion of these authors, the supposed black holes “are believed to be inside fairly mature, giant, elliptical galaxies”. We are absolutely sure that the specialists who prepared this material are aware of both previous studies and our analysis of these previous materials which showed groundless the authors’ conclusions:



In such situation, there is no sense to speak of somewhat observations and registered phenomena. Only radiating objects can shine, but objects which, by definition, do not radiate but absorb - cannot shine. The same, the following argument of the authors: “As their black holes suck in material from their dusty rings, the material lights up brilliantly, making quasars the brightest objects in the universe” and its continuation: “Quasars outshine everything else in the universe in X-rays” - also do not stand any criticism. It is at least groundless to state that quasars which still were not found trustworthily outshine everything in the universe in X-rays. The same, they have no grounds to state: “As their black holes suck in material from their dusty rings, the material lights up brilliantly, making quasars the brightest objects in the universe. This bright light comes in many forms, including X-rays, visible and infrared light”. Material sucked in by black hole can light up brilliantly only at large distances from the event horizon, where the light remains its ability to surmount the gravity attraction of black hole. Such luminescence can take place exceptionally with the substance excitation, in this case it can be only compression causing the growth of temperature and density. This last is impossible in the black hole conception, as the process is connected with the counter-pressure in the substance that prevents the free fall of next substance onto the centre of gravity field. The fact that a disk of gas and dust exists around the galactic nucleus says only, this is a galaxy as such, galaxy like all others. The fact of bright luminescence says of presence of large amount of stars in the massive, not that the centre of galaxy ‘eats’ them. The fact of X-radiation says of high temperature of processes either that this is a very old galaxy and stars in its nucleus dye, nothing more. To the point, the black hole theory, which accounts nothing except the geometry of supposed process, says also nothing of any criterions related to the temperature, so the authors had no grounds to use any type of radiation as a criterion. All the rest ‘it is supposed’, ‘as expected’ and ‘they think’ are mere words stylistically composed by the authors into a pattern much resembling the situation when the scientists were fairly funded to prove quasars and black holes existent, never obtained something real and want by any price to present their imagination as a reality.

It is a long known practice of studies in physics that before spending efforts, time and funding to seek some phenomenon, it is necessary to make consistent the conception on whose basis the efforts will be spent. As we showed in our work and corroborated in this Supplement, the black hole conception is inconsistent, beginning with its basic definitions and modelling scheme and finishing with clear mistakes in solving of modelling equations. Until all discrepancies are lifted, any search will be fruitless and limited by one-day sensations in which clearly seen is the striving to show desired as real. In this connection, the virtuality of Schwarzschild’s radius which we proved seems to be the sufficient grounds to improve the descriptions made by the authors of analysed discovery.

In conclusion, we are much pleased to especially mark a great interest of colleagues to elicit the truth. There in the relativistic conception are many problematic and clearly erroneous statements. Without full comprehension of the heart of problem, it is very hard and even, we would say, impossible to advance in our knowledge of natural phenomena. With it, we should not feel fatally that relativistic conception will pass, as many, many other theories did. It will fulfil its task, as when having grasped its wrong approaches, we will finally work out new knowledge and refine our understanding of processes to which many scientists long ago draw no attention, mistakenly thinking these trends to be definitively studied and absolutely clear. Nothing in physics can be definitively studied and absolutely clear. We showed it in our study of Doppler effect [22], effect of astronomical aberration [23], in study of black holes. From this view, it is important to be not trying to dogmatically defend some symbols or ideas, making groups sticking to the principle of belief in such or other description of phenomenon. We have to penetrate to the essence, regardless of authorities or of which conception is conventional today. Then many issues which colleagues rise in discussing our results will be lifted on their own and to their place will come the issues of constructive development of our common knowledge. This is the main and only key to the real success in comprehension of Nature.

Contents / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / Paper

Hosted by uCoz