The Truth About Black Hole Images
by Asa Boxer
Welcome to Barstool Bits, a weekly short column meant to supplement the long-form essays that appear only once or twice a month from analogy magazine proper. You can opt out of Barstool Bits by clicking on Unsubscribe at the bottom of your email and toggling off this series. If, on the other hand, you’d like to read past Bits, click here.
Some years ago, probably sometime in 2018, I stumbled across the Electric Universe theory and was deeply intrigued for a host of reasons: for one, it pushed back against the most extravagant claims of Relativity theory, but probably most compelling for me was that the approach promoted an electromagnetic reading of how the universe operates instead of a mechanical reading. The machine metaphor is tired by now, and, as I see it, we need a new paradigm if we are going to take a proper next step in cosmological science. I got in touch with the lead scientist promoting and developing the theory, Wal Thornhill, and in 2020, we published an astounding article on the subject, which you can find here.
I should warn readers that the Electric Universe theory is deemed “fringe pseudoscience” by mainstream cosmologists and astrophysicists. There are good reasons for this, the most obvious being that a century of physics would wind up in the trash and a lot of reputations would fade and be destroyed, not the least of which would be Einstein himself.
There are other good reasons to be sceptical of the Electric Universe model, namely owing to its origins with Emmanuel Velikovsky, who shook up the world in the 1950s, through the 60s, and into the early 1970s with his claims that the solar system was not as stable as we’d thought and that humanity had witnessed deeply traumatising celestial events that were recorded as mythology and forgotten as our ancestors sank into collective amnesia. His claims included ideas like (a) our original sun was Saturn, and (b) Venus is a relatively new planet ejected from Jupiter. When Venus came into being, it flew by Earth at a close enough distance to cause all manner of horrifying upheaval, displacing Mars and precipitating immense electrical phenomena that carved out canyons and other geological structures that have been attributed to slow erosive forces.
On the surface, stated baldly like that, one can understand why this avenue of thought has been relegated to the crackpot bin. But if one suspends disbelief and hears out the argument, it’s not nearly as nuts as it sounds on a first, superficial pass, largely because what the Electric Universe offers that present day cosmology and astrophysics does not is laboratory experiments that illustrate the main concepts in play.
Now, I’m not saying Velikovsky was right about everything; what I’m saying is his ideas are visionary, inspired, and inspiring enough to have set the stage for a whole new paradigm. A number of the things he proposed have proven false, sure, but some of his ideas have proven productive. One of the biggest objections to his work was that he proposed (in his famous book Worlds in Collision) that some of the most outlandish tales in the Bible could be verified and explained by these equally outlandish cosmic phenomena that had corollaries in the histories and mythologies of cultures across the globe.
Those familiar with the Velikovsky controversy also recall how poorly the scientific community reacted. The behaviour displayed by scientists was downright nasty and unprofessional, to put it mildly. To give one example of this behaviour, a group of scientists started a campaign to pressure his publisher (Macmillan) to quit printing and pull the book from the market. Despite Worlds in Collision being a best seller, Macmillan capitulated because of threats that universities would go elsewhere for their science textbooks. This was Macmillan’s bread and butter, so they broke the contract.
The real fear was that Velikovsky’s book was paving the way back to creationism, the big bogeyman of modern science. The campaign against Velikovsky included more than threats against his publisher, but I’m not going to get into the details here. I direct those curious to learn more to read The Pseudoscience Wars by Michael D. Gordin. Indeed, the campaign against Velikovsky was so unhinged that it eventually prompted Carl Sagan to admit as follows:
“The worst aspect of the Velikovsky Affair was not that many of his ideas are in gross contradiction to the facts. Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas.”
“There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly alright: it’s the aperture to finding out what's right,” he further explained, before concluding, “The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there’s no place for it in the endeavor of science.”
See Real Clear Science “Science Should Not Suppress Ideas, No Matter How Crazy”
I provide this background information so those new to the subject have a fair introduction and understand that they ought to proceed carefully. There’s probably a lot wrong with Electric Universe theory, but there’s quite obviously a lot wrong with Relativity. As I said above, at least proponents of the Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology can refer to lab experiments, where Relativity can, too often, only refer to math. Moreover, Electric Universe theory has come a very long way since Velikovsky and I don’t think the claims made in Worlds in Collision have much bearing anymore on this developing area of scientific speculation.
Now to my actual subject: the image of a black hole that hit the news with a bang in 2019.
As I mentioned a couple of weeks back, once TheScience™ has produced an image of something, one can no longer claim that no one has ever seen it. Last time, I was looking at electron microscopy; this time, we’re looking at the macro scale through the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), which is as much a telescope as an electron microscope is a microscope: neither provide direct observations in the sense one expects when hearing about these “scopes.” In the present case, we’re talking about a three-year-long observation, resulting in a data set assembled into images, using an algorithm to fill in gaps. In other words, the output is a composite image built up by a biased platform overtly seeking to confirm the phenomenon in question. In other words, the whole system is designed to “see” it through computer modelling. Seeking confirmations is not science. Science is supposed to seek falsifications of its own hypotheses, but this critical aspect of science has been lost over the past century or so.
Those who recall the hype will remember typical headlines like this April 10, 2019 one from New Scientist: “First ever real image of a black hole.” The word, “real” is a bent truth, if not an outright lie. This article from Universe Magazine explains that the image isn’t a snapshot as lay readers have been led to believe, that it is, in fact, a composite, part fabricated, part incomplete image that may very well be misleading. I’m sure the hype, however, netted the desired grants and funding those involved needed to keep running their programs. It’s not exactly a hoax, but it’s not honest science either. My point is that the public now believes that black holes have been confirmed by direct observation and that they therefore truly exist the same way it believes coronaviruses exist. Some scientists put together an image, enhanced it, pointed at it and called it “virus” or “black hole,” and there you go: seeing is believing. Anyone can now google “real image of a black hole” and find it. It’s irrefutable, see?
I direct readers to the Thunderbolts Project channel on Youtube. This is the Electric Universe video information channel. They’ve recently produced an excellent “Misconception” series of videos narrated by David Drew. Number 2 in the series focuses on our subject today and is about 15 minutes long. Drew suggests that the image in question is likely a plasmoid, and shares the image below. I remind readers that the ferrocell images of magnetism also reproduce a “black hole.” Simply being aware of these phenomena gives pause, since they can explain the image (composite and half-baked as it is) without resorting to black holes. David Drew reminds us that even Einstein believed that black holes were mathematical aberrations without grounding in reality.
To add to the ridiculousness of blackholology, the European Southern Observatory shared the following, further enhanced image.
The accompanying explanation reads:
“A view of the M87 supermassive black hole in polarised light”
“This image shows the polarised view of the black hole in M87. The lines mark the orientation of polarisation, which is related to the magnetic field around the shadow of the black hole.”
From the European Southern Observatory, here.
As the ferrocell image above demonstrates, the “shadow of the black hole” isn’t simply “related to the magnetic field”—it is an essential property of magnetic fields and has nothing to do with gravitational singularity as defined by the Relativity paradigm.
As I keep pointing out, the sciences are in a sorry state across the board. We’ve entered a pseudoscientific age in which the most absurd hypotheses are being promulgated as fact and verified via confirmation bias. Science culture has entirely lost the thread and slipped into scientistic superstition characterised by fictional entities and tall tales. The whole apparatus is being fuelled by over-specialisation, which functions as a blinder along with financial incentives to futz the findings. In addition, we have a whole culture in thrall to “the science” in an unquestioning manner. Nothing could be more unscientific than present-day science.
My suggestion, as always, is to reintroduce philosophy, metaphysics, and an understanding of analogy and its role in scientific thought. How to achieve such a thing in the present hyper-materialist phase of our civilisation is hard to imagine. Too much money is on the line and too many reputations are fully invested in tired paradigms strutting about as “the science.” Worse, it’s become politicised to the point no one who wants to be taken seriously can challenge the status quo. The West is now provincial and puritanical, i.e. small-minded and afraid to question itself. How long this state of affairs can continue is unclear. What is clear, however, is that the human soul knows better. The inner world cries out in the wilderness and eventually breaks from its bondage. We can already see the glimmering seeds of this future scientific revolution as the heroes of the next chapter of the Science story fearlessly speak out and lay the groundwork for new paradigms.
Asa Boxer’s poetry has garnered several prizes and is included in various anthologies around the world. His books are The Mechanical Bird (Signal, 2007), Skullduggery (Signal, 2011), Friar Biard’s Primer to the New World (Frog Hollow Press, 2013), Etymologies(Anstruther Press, 2016), Field Notes from the Undead (Interludes Press, 2018) and The Narrow Cabinet: A Zombie Chronicle (Guernica, 2022). Boxer is also the founder and editor of analogy magazine.
I enjoyed this and the post just before it. I recently read an essay by Jeffrey A. Tucker quoting Hayek's 1974 Nobel speech. May I? I am sure you know it well. "In the sciences of man, what looks superficially like the most scientific procedure is often the most unscientific." He was wary of use of such procedure to shape society "entirely to our liking." He added that "the confidence in the unlimited power of science is only too often based on a false belief that the scientific method consists in the application of a ready-made technique, . . . as if one needed only to follow some cooking recipes to solve all social problems."
Dear Asa, I get the feeling that our shallow society nonetheless has started developing a deeper, more philosophical metaphysic, one nascently engaged in restoring lost knowledge and wisdom. I may be wrong about this, but such a phenomenon seems to be happening among a growing number of people, even in my limited circle of acquaintances, and maybe this is cause for a wider optimism. A case in point occurred last night when I had a conversation with a friend who remains a man-made climate change zealot, but now he says that industrial agriculture and urban development, not CO2, are the prime culprits of ecological destruction. It's a start! He also says that a wealth of traditional farming knowledge has been lost and needs to be restored. This gradual reframing of consciousness in which progress means 'going forwards by looking backwards' seems to be gaining traction, and I've borne witness to more than one person in my little circle reorienting their minds accordingly. It reminds me of the way Frances Yates describes the nature of consciousness in Renaissance Europe in her wonderful book Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition:
"The cyclic view of time as a perpetual movement from pristine golden ages of purity and truth through successive brazen and iron ages still held sway [in Renaissance Europe] and the search for truth was thus of necessity a search for the early, the ancient, the original gold from which the baser metals of the present and the immediate past were corrupt degenerations."
I suspect that this mental outlook of the classical humanist is slowly making a comeback, and if so it could serve us well in helping move us away from the illusion of materialist science progressing like an arrow toward utopia. I hope that what I think I'm seeing is real: a growing understanding that we share a vanished communal knowledge, something like a collective consciousness in abeyance, about living healthy, holy, meaningful lives that's been lost but is well within our power to recover. So, nowadays I keep asking myself: what can I do to help encourage such a mental reorientation in people I communicate with? That question seems to hold promise in showing a way forward, albeit slowly, out of this rotten civilisation we live in.