The Black hole seen for the First Time is A Beautiful Lie
The scientific community is abuzz right now over news that a black hole is being seen for the first time. Although black holes have been part of the theoretical conversation of the scientific community since Einstein proposed the theory in 1915, no one could ever claim that they were indeed real. Einstein, himself would have been surprised that scientist in 2019 are claiming to have seen one through a telescope since he really never believed black holes were possible in the physical universe. Einstein thought the idea was a little too weird to manifest itself in the actual universe.
He assumed it was an artifact of the mathematics, said physicist Daniel Kennefick, co-author of “An Einstein Encyclopedia” and the upcoming “No Shadow of Doubt.” In correspondence with French physicists in the 1920s, Einstein dismissed the idea that something could collapse forever, reaching a point of infinite density and trapping even light.
So the obvious question is why are scientist reporting something that could only exist as a mathematical conundrum? The answer is quite obvious. It is another space hoax. You see, scientists have a deep-seated need to be right. At the end of the day, scientists hate to be wrong, and they will do almost anything to support their erroneous claims. This includes falsifying claims and manipulating data so that the results of their so-called discoveries support their claims.
Most Scientific Findings Are Wrong or Useless
Sarewitz, a professor at Arizona State University’s School for Future Innovation and Society, points to reams of mistaken or simply useless research findings that have been generated over the past decades.
Sarewitz cites several examples of bad science that I reported in my February article “Broken Science These include a major biotech company’s finding in 2012 that only six out of 53 landmarks published preclinical cancer studies could be replicated. Researchers at a leading pharmaceutical company reported that they could not replicate 43 of the 67 published preclinical studies that the company had been relying on to develop cancer and cardiovascular treatments and diagnostics. In 2015, only about a third of 100 psychological studies published in three leading psychology journals could be adequately replicated.
Consider climate change. “The vaunted scientific consensus around climate change,” notes Sarewitz, “applies only to a narrow claim about the discernible human impact on global warming. The minute you get into questions about the rate and severity of future impacts, or the costs of and best pathways for addressing them, no semblance of consensus among experts remains.” Nevertheless, climate “models spew out endless streams of trans-scientific facts that allow for claims and counterclaims, all apparently sanctioned by science, about how urgent the problem is and what needs to be done.”
Sarewitz concludes that ultimately, science can be rescued if researchers can be directed more toward solving real-world problems rather than pursuing the beautiful lie. Sarewitz argues that in the future, the most valuable scientific institutions will be those that are held accountable and give scientists incentives to solve urgent concrete problems. The goal of such science will be to produce new useful technologies, not new useless studies. In the meantime, Sarewitz has made a strong case that contemporary “science isn’t self-correcting, it’s self-destructing.”
It would appear that scientists these scientific pictures of a black hole are no more than a beautiful lie revived from