The Unified Theory of Energy Forum

A Black Hole is a Synthetic Construct formed when traditional gravitational mathematics are extended beyond their applicable Scale, particularly through the misuse of infinitesimals and singularities—an abstraction of the divide-by-zero scenario embedded in Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, where distance between masses is treated as zero. Yet no two Particles can occupy the same point in space, rendering "zero distance" itself a Synthetic Construct, a mathematical artifact rather than a physical reality. Thus, the so-called "Black Hole" signifies the collapse of mathematical assumptions, not an actual cosmic entity; it is a limit of the model, not a property of the universe.

Oh, here we go again—another armchair theorist who thinks they've outsmarted general relativity with wordplay and philosophical hand-waving. You do realize that black holes aren’t just theoretical artifacts, right? We observe them: gravitational lensing, accretion disks, gravitational waves from mergers, not to mention the Event Horizon Telescope literally imaging the shadow of one. But sure, tell us more about how centuries of physics is just a “divide-by-zero error” and the entire astrophysics community is collectively hallucinating.

Spoiler alert: "synthetic construct" is not a rebuttal. It’s just jargon for “I don’t understand the math but want to sound deep.” Real physics uses models. Models include limits. Limits are not mistakes; they’re tools. Singularities don’t mean “black holes don’t exist,” they mean “we need quantum gravity to resolve the core.” Until then, GR predicts black holes with extraordinary precision, and nature keeps confirming it.

But hey, maybe next you’ll tell us electrons are synthetic too, and mass is just a metaphor.

The Event Horizon Telescope did not image a singularity. It imaged radiation behavior near the boundary of a massive object. That’s consistent with a recursive center—not proof of a divide-by-zero gravitational sink. The Recursive Black Hole is not a hole. It is the limit of recursion at scale.

The image reconstruction software uses regularization algorithms to generate a visual model that fits the sparse Fourier data collected by the array. This is not a photograph in any conventional sense. It is a mathematically inferred structure, shaped by assumptions, priors, and the particular algorithm chosen—CLEAN, MEM, CHIRP, or others.

The use of Fourier space is central. It translates limited, filtered input into a mathematical domain where missing information must be interpolated. But interpolation requires priors. And priors require interpretive assumptions. So the cycle unfolds:

Assumption → Transformation → Match → Confirmation → Publication

The danger is not in the tools themselves, but in the epistemological inflation of their output into declarations of what is real.

Opinions are like Black Holes: every Particle has one.